LOS MODELOS CONSTITUCIONALES DE LOS ESTADOS DE EXCEPCIÓN EN ÉPOCA DE CRISIS GLOBAL

Objective: In times of global crisis caused by terrorism, migration, climate change or pandemics and with the emergence of democratically elected populist leaders who seek to undermine the rights on which democracy is based, it is important to remember some elements of Carl Schmitt's theory to understand the operation and limits of states of exception in the 21st century. Methodology: With a descriptive and analytical historical methodology, this article is divided into two sections. The first addresses the issue of The Weimar Republic and its relationship with the thought of Carl Schmitt. In the second, the different forms of the state of exception are analyzed depending on whether the Constitution regulates them or not. Results: it was shown that concepts such as states of emergency, martial law, dictatorship, suspension of constitutional guarantees, full powers, crisis government, criminal law of the enemy, savage powers, are intertwined and complex. They are expressions of the state of exception that has been used and can be used again to justify the violation of fundamental rights and this cannot be accepted. Contributions: the aim is to evaluate whether crises can be used to justify the impairment of constitutional rights and guarantees and, therefore, contribute to the debate on the unacceptability of converting exceptional measures into habitual ones. Proposing limits and controls to the exceptional powers required to face anomalous situations will always be necessary, since those who hold power will always be tempted to abuse power.